[75277] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Nov 10 07:00:53 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041109230004.GA60419@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:00:04 +0100
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 10-nov-04, at 0:00, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> with the protocols still designed to work over IPv4 NAT, and the
> complexity of IPv6 NAT being roughly "s/long/long long/g" (yes,
> simplified, but you get my point) and recompiling your NAT code,
> I'm not sure what will be the barrier to IPv6 NAT.
The main problem with NAT is protocols that embed IP addresses. I don't
think many protocol implementations can be changed by a search and
replace like operation, the same way simple apps can.
> I would love to see a solid technical reason why IPv6 NAT will NOT
> work.
> In the absense of that I will stick to my guns and say that it will
> work and be available, and most likely sooner rather than later.
NAT doesn't work for MANY things by default. You have to add stuff to
make it work. If this stuff isn't added for IPv6, your IPv6 NAT will
only work with simple client/server apps.
Also: what is the point? If you're going to do NAT anyway, why bother
with IPv6?
